Soil nutrient status and fertility evaluation of typical taro producing areas in Shaoguan City

CUI Luoxiao; LIU Ya; ZHAO Lanfeng; ZHANG Xinming; XU Yiwu; XIE Jian; REN Zongling

doi:10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.202307012

Journal of South China Agricultural University > 2024 > 45(3): 344-353. > DOI: 10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.202307012

CUI Luoxiao, LIU Ya, ZHAO Lanfeng, et al. Soil nutrient status and fertility evaluation of typical taro producing areas in Shaoguan City[J]. Journal of South China Agricultural University, 2024, 45(3): 344-353. DOI: 10.7671/j.issn.1001-411X.202307012

Citation:

PDF (1035 KB)

Soil nutrient status and fertility evaluation of typical taro producing areas in Shaoguan City

1.
College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2.
Guangdong Tianhe Agricultural Means of Production Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510080, China
3.
Agricultural Integrated Service Center, Litang Town, Binyang County, Nanning, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530409, China

More Information

Received Date: July 19, 2023
Available Online: March 12, 2024
Published Date: March 10, 2024

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Objective
To better understand the soil fertility status in typical taro producing areas in Shaoguan City, Guangdong Province, and provide suggestions for soil nutrient management in taro producing areas.
Method
The 0−30 cm soil samples were collected from taro rhizosphere in Laojun Village of Guitou Town, Guanpotan Village and Nongzhuang Village of Langtian Town from Shaoguan City, to determine the physical and chemical properties. Principal component analysis and correlation analysis were conducted to select the key indicators that best represent local soil fertility entering into minimum data set. All indicators were normalized using membership functions, and soil quality indices were calculated for soil fertility evaluation.
Result
The soils in three taro producing areas were all acidic with suitable bulk density (1.17 g·cm⁻³) and texture, but with low cation exchange capacity (CEC, 9.17 cmol·kg⁻¹). The contents of available P (54.20 mg·kg⁻¹), Cu (2.07 mg·kg⁻¹), Fe (186.33 mg·kg⁻¹), Zn (1.87 mg·kg⁻¹) were rich, while the contents of available Mn (4.21 mg·kg⁻¹), B (0.12 mg·kg⁻¹), Mo (0.10 mg·kg⁻¹) were deficient or extremely deficient. The contents of other nutrients were at moderate to above-average levels. Among the three taro producing areas, there were significant differences in the percentage of soil grain size, contents of alkali-hydrolyzed N, exchangeable Ca, and exchangeable Mg, whereas the differences in other indicators were not significant. Seven indicators were selected to build the minimum data set for soil fertility evaluation, including alkali-hydrolyzed N, sand, clay, exchangeable Ca, available B, and available Fe contents as well as CEC. The evaluation results indicated that the soil fertilities of the three taro producing areas were at moderate levels, and the contents of alkali-hydrolyzed N and exchangeable Ca were the main limiting factors.
Conclusion
The overall soil fertility level of typical taro producing area in Shaoguan City is moderate, with poor soil nutrient retention capacity and deficiencies in trace elements, such as available Mn, B and Mo. Therefore, it is important to use organic fertilizers and micronutrient fertilizers during taro cultivation. Balanced fertilization shall be practiced to improve soil properties and enhance its nutrient retention capacity.
- Taro producing area,
- Nutrient level,
- Minimum data set,
- Soil fertility evaluation

FullText(HTML)

References (49)

References

[1]	戴修纯, 罗燕羽, 黄绍力, 等. 广东省芋头产业现状与发展对策[J]. 广东农业科学, 2021, 48(6): 126-135.
[2]	邓小英. 乳源县桂头镇精准扶贫政策实施效果研究[D]. 广州: 仲恺农业工程学院, 2020.
[3]	高琳. 广东乐昌市香芋产区土壤养分特征与香芋品质的相关性[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2014, 42(8): 179-181. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3601.2014.08.048
[4]	高琳. 基于层次分析法的香芋产区土壤养分肥力评价: 以广东省张溪村为例[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2014, 42(10): 323-326. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1302.2014.10.111
[5]	高琳, 陈晓远, 林昌华, 等. 基于ArcGIS韶关市香芋土壤养分空间变异特征研究[J]. 西南农业学报, 2018, 31(5): 1025-1031.
[6]	高琳, 卢文婷, 林昌华, 等. 粤北香芋种植区典型土壤剖面发育特征[J]. 中国农学通报, 2022, 38(10): 85-91. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0457
[7]	单奇华, 俞元春, 张建锋, 等. 城市森林土壤肥力质量指标筛选: 以南京市为例[J]. 土壤, 2009, 41(5): 777-783. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9829.2009.05.016
[8]	BASTIDA F, ZSOLNAY A, HERNANDEZ T, et al. Past, present and future of soil quality indices: A biological perspective[J]. Geoderma, 2008, 147(3/4): 159-171.
[9]	刘引, 颜鸿远, 欧小宏, 等. 基于最小数据集的麻城菊花种植区土壤肥力质量评价[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2019, 44(24): 5382-5389.
[10]	BÜNEMANN E K, BONGIORNO G, BAI Z, et al. Soil quality: A critical review[J]. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2018, 120: 105-125.
[11]	MAURYA S, ABRAHAM J S, SOMASUNDARAM S, et al. Indicators for assessment of soil quality: A mini-review[J]. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2020, 192(9): 604. doi: 10.1007/s10661-020-08556-z
[12]	LARSON W E, PIERCE F J. Conservation and enhancement of soil quality[C]//Proceedings of the international workshop on evaluation of sustainable land management in the developing world. Bangkok, Thailand, 1991.
[13]	吴玉红, 田霄鸿, 同延安, 等. 基于主成分分析的土壤肥力综合指数评价[J]. 生态学杂志, 2010, 29(1): 173-180.
[14]	CHEN S, LIN B, LI Y, et al. Spatial and temporal changes of soil properties and soil fertility evaluation in a large grain-production area of subtropical plain, China[J]. Geoderma, 2020, 357: 113937. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113937
[15]	李鑫, 张文菊, 邬磊, 等. 土壤质量评价指标体系的构建及评价方法[J]. 中国农业科学, 2021, 54(14): 3043-3056. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2021.14.010
[16]	李鹏飞, 张兴昌, 郝明德, 等. 基于最小数据集的黄土高原矿区复垦土壤质量评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2019, 35(16): 265-273. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2019.16.030
[17]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 湖南省土壤肥料工作站, 江西省土壤肥料技术推广站. 土壤检测: 第1部分: 土壤样品的采集、处理和贮存: NY/T 1121.1—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[18]	中国林业科学研究院林业研究所森林土壤研究室. 森林土壤颗粒组成(机械组成)的测定: LY/T 1225—1999[S]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 1999.
[19]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所, 上海市农业技术推广服务中心. 土壤检测: 第2部分: 土壤pH的测定: NY/T 1121.2—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[20]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 中国农业科学院农业资源与农业区划研究所, 华中农业大学. 土壤检测: 第6部分: 土壤有机质的测定: NY/T 1121.6—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[21]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 农业部肥料质量监督检验测试中心(济南), 农业部肥料质量监督检验测试中心(杭州), 等. 土壤检测: 第24部分: 土壤全氮的测定: 自动定氮仪法: NY/T 1121.24—2012[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012.
[22]	中国林业科学研究院林业研究所. 森林土壤氮的测定: LY/T 1228—2015[S]. 北京: 中国林业出版社, 2015.
[23]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 湖南省土壤肥料工作站, 江苏省土壤肥料技术指导站. 土壤检测: 第7部分: 酸性土壤有效磷的测定: NY/T 1121.7—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[24]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 中国农业大学, 杭州土壤肥料测试中心. 土壤速效钾和缓效钾含量的测定: NY/T 889—2004[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004.
[25]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 湖南省土壤肥料工作站, 湖北省土壤肥料工作站. 土壤检测: 第5部分: 石灰性土壤阳离子交换量的测定: NY/T 1121.5—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[26]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 湖南省土壤肥料工作站, 江西省土壤肥料技术推广站. 土壤检测: 第13部分: 土壤交换性钙和镁的测定: NY/T 1121.13—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[27]	中国农业科学院土壤肥料研究所, 农业部肥料质量监督检验测试中心(长沙), 农业部肥料质量监督检验测试中心(成都). 土壤有效态锌、锰、铁、铜含量的测定二乙三胺五乙酸(DTPA)浸提法: NY/T 890—2004[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2004.
[28]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 安徽省土壤肥料总站, 广东省土壤肥料总站. 土壤检测: 第8部分: 土壤有效硼的测定: NY/T 1121.8—2006[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2006.
[29]	全国农业技术推广服务中心, 农业部肥料质量监督检验测试中心(济南), 农业部肥料质量监督就由测试中心(成都), 等. 土壤检测: 第9部分: 土壤有效钼的测定: NY/T 1121.9—2012[S]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2012.
[30]	全国土壤普查办公室. 中国土壤[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 1998.
[31]	贡璐, 张雪妮, 冉启洋. 基于最小数据集的塔里木河上游绿洲土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤学报, 2015, 52(3): 682-689.
[32]	王英哲, 国坤, 孙云龙, 等. 基于最小数据集的东北地区朝鲜淫羊藿土壤肥力评价[J]. 特产研究, 2021, 43(5): 6-12.
[33]	王玲玲, 徐福利, 王渭玲, 等. 不同林龄华北落叶松人工林地土壤肥力评价[J]. 西南林业大学学报, 2016, 36(2): 17-24.
[34]	梅楠, 谷岩, 李德忠, 等. 基于最小数据集的吉林省黑土耕层土壤质量评价[J]. 农业工程学报, 2021, 37(12): 91-98. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2021.12.011
[35]	刘利昆, 赵广举, 穆兴民, 等. 基于最小数据集的青藏公路沿线土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2022, 29(2): 125-131. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-3409.2022.2.stbcyj202202020
[36]	张宇恒, 王忠诚, 王亚楠, 等. 基于最小数据集沂蒙山区不同治理模式下的土壤质量评价[J]. 水土保持研究, 2023, 30(1): 241-247.
[37]	赵瑾, 鲁瑞洁, 马罗. 青藏高原不同土地利用方式下的土壤质量评价[J]. 地球环境学报, 2023, 14(3): 339-351. doi: 10.7515/JEE222059
[38]	吴克宁, 赵瑞. 土壤质地分类及其在我国应用探讨[J]. 土壤学报, 2019, 56(1): 227-241. doi: 10.11766/trxb201803120129
[39]	黄凯峰. 启东香芋的特征特性及高产栽培技术[J]. 上海蔬菜, 2020(2): 36-37. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-1469.2020.02.017
[40]	田雪, 孙奥博, 陈春羽, 等. 秸秆还田深度对土壤性状及玉米生长的影响[J]. 西南农业学报, 2022, 35(11): 2571-2578.
[41]	YANG S, ZHANG Y, FENG B, et al. Coupling of Hofmeister effect, electrolyte concentration, and mechanical composition in soil loss: Runoff simulation study[J]. Soil and Tillage Research, 2021, 212: 105073. doi: 10.1016/j.still.2021.105073
[42]	WERNEREHL R W, GIVNISH T J. Relative roles of soil moisture, nutrient supply, depth, and mechanical impedance in determining composition and structure of Wisconsin Prairies[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(9): e137963.
[43]	高巨鹏, 何小兰, 廖首发, 等. 荔浦芋生产肥力主因子分析[J]. 土壤通报, 2012, 43(1): 98-101.
[44]	黄尚书, 叶川, 钟义军, 等. 不同土地利用方式对红壤坡地土壤阳离子交换量及交换性盐基离子的影响[J]. 土壤与作物, 2016, 5(2): 72-77.
[45]	杨树俊, 韩张雄, 王思远, 等. 土壤阳离子交换量与有机质、机械组成的关系[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2023, 23(7): 2799-2805. doi: 10.12404/j.issn.1671-1815.2023.23.07.02799
[46]	蒋廷惠, 占新华, 徐阳春, 等. 钙对植物抗逆能力的影响及其生态学意义[J]. 应用生态学报, 2005(5): 971-976. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:1001-9332.2005.05.039
[47]	张亚晨. 简述镁元素对植物的作用[J]. 农业开发与装备, 2018(11): 166. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-9205.2018.11.112
[48]	胡丽娜. 微量元素对植物的作用[J]. 现代农业, 2014(7): 25.
[49]	李桂林, 陈杰, 檀满枝, 等. 基于土地利用变化建立土壤质量评价最小数据集[J]. 土壤学报, 2008(1): 16-25. doi: 10.3321/j.issn:0564-3929.2008.01.003

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(3)

1.	国显宝，韩冰，逯新民，何奕成，于露，张万通，段丽辉，耿依仪，邵新庆，俞点，韩伽怡. 氮添加对青藏高原高寒草甸丛枝菌根真菌群落的影响. 草地学报. 2024(07): 2054-2061 .
2.	薛壮壮，冯童禹，王超，沈仁芳. 磷肥对酸性红壤上玉米不同部位丛枝菌根真菌群落的影响. 土壤. 2023(05): 1008-1015 .
3.	胡家欣，彭思利，张栋，葛之葳，杨楠. 氮添加对不同林龄杨树人工林丛枝菌根真菌群落的影响. 生态环境学报. 2020(09): 1768-1775 .

Other cited types(10)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article views (150) PDF downloads (36) Cited by(13)

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Soil nutrient status and fertility evaluation of typical taro producing areas in Shaoguan City

Abstract

References

Cited by

Periodical cited type(3)

Other cited types(10)

Catalog

Export File

Citation

Format

Content